Term Paper: From Aeolipile to Locomotive

DominusNovus · Jan 18, 2005

Nope. Not gonna use such a deus ex machina as a plague. That why I choose ship propulsion and not mine pumps to start off the steam age. The Romans pumped mines as it was, with slave power. Ships, on the other hand, were oared by free men, expensive to train and maintain, so labor saving devices have a chance there.

DominusNovus · Jan 18, 2005

Anyone know a good source of info on Roman Metallurgy?

DominusNovus · Jan 22, 2005

Just in case anyone's interested, the paper basicly has to answer these 5 questions:

I) What were the wants/needs this technology was meant to fulfill?
II) What were the available alternative technologies?
III) How did the technology develop?
IV) How did the technology win over its competitors?
V) What were the consequences?

DominusNovus · Mar 21, 2005

Alright, now that we're getting close to the deadline of my paper, I'm bumping this baby.

What I'm curious about is fuel. How long before the Roman start running out of easily accessed wood to fuel these engines? I remember discussing on the yahoo group, and everyone went off on a tangent on the merits of peat fuel. But, basically, I'm wondering, at what point, do the Romans start seriously looking at coal.

Nik · Mar 21, 2005

Hmm...

Didn't the Greek method of ship-building change rather abruptly when they ran short of *skilled* slaves ??

DominusNovus · Mar 21, 2005

I just thought of another idea about Roman Steam Engines. The Newcomen engine was used for one purpose: to pump water. Either out of mine, or into cities.

The Romans were big on their urban water works. Not a stretch to have them build an engine to help pump water to their cities, is it?

Hapsburg · Mar 21, 2005

which leads to locomotives, steam ships, ironclads, and steam aircraft, all before 1800. that is, of course, if Rome isnt destroyed. maybe have a POD where commodus isnt emperor, but a good successor. The Pax Romana doesnt end until, like 1000 AD.

Historico · Mar 21, 2005

I think the sadistic twist would be that the Roman Empire still fractures and falls...but the successor states enhirt the Roman Knowledge and Inventions

carlton_bach · Mar 22, 2005

Hapsburg said:
which leads to locomotives, steam ships, ironclads, and steam aircraft, all before 1800. that is, of course, if Rome isnt destroyed. maybe have a POD where commodus isnt emperor, but a good successor. The Pax Romana doesnt end until, like 1000 AD.

You can't pin the fall of the Roman Empire on any one emperor. Commodus had relatively little to do with it, and anyways, you had Septimius Severus afterwards and what he couldn't fix, nobody could. (It's interesting that many of the 'bad' emperors of later times got a bad name because of their pro-military, pro-reform, anti-Senate stance, yet that stance was what stabilised the Empire. Of course by all accounts Commodus was more in the Caligula mould).

Perversely, the very success of the Roman Empire contributed to its fall, so better technology wouldm if anything, speed along the process. Before the Pax Romana, there were not inefficient military organisations and unwalled cities. They didn't last. There were not great tribal states in German lands - they coudn't have figured it out. And there was no authority that could dictate the terms of peace to a large swathe of territory. Neither was there an ioncentive for govewrbnment in border regions to tolerate barbarian raiders in return for military support. All of this only works in the context of a huge Empire.

As regards the date, that is more or less as long as it lasted. At least if you figure 'Empire' meaning 'larg-ish territorial holdings'.

Hapsburg · Mar 22, 2005

carlton_bach said:
You can't pin the fall of the Roman Empire on any one emperor. Commodus had relatively little to do with it, and anyways, you had Septimius Severus afterwards and what he couldn't fix, nobody could. (It's interesting that many of the 'bad' emperors of later times got a bad name because of their pro-military, pro-reform, anti-Senate stance, yet that stance was what stabilised the Empire. Of course by all accounts Commodus was more in the Caligula mould).

Perversely, the very success of the Roman Empire contributed to its fall, so better technology wouldm if anything, speed along the process. Before the Pax Romana, there were not inefficient military organisations and unwalled cities. They didn't last. There were not great tribal states in German lands - they coudn't have figured it out. And there was no authority that could dictate the terms of peace to a large swathe of territory. Neither was there an ioncentive for govewrbnment in border regions to tolerate barbarian raiders in return for military support. All of this only works in the context of a huge Empire.

As regards the date, that is more or less as long as it lasted. At least if you figure 'Empire' meaning 'larg-ish territorial holdings'.

'kay. Say that Commodus becomes a better leader than he was in OTL, and conquers Germania. Then what?
If they RE had locomotives and faster modes of transportation, they could more quickly reinforce thier territory, and not get "spread too thin" as much. As such, the Empire takes longer to collapse. Etc.